Bihar crisis: Spotlight now on governor, speaker and courts
As the political drama in Bihar threatened to overshadow TRP rating of Cricket World Cup in Hindi heartland, the current episode in Bihar has once again put a spotlight on the role played by the institutional referees – head of the state (governor, in this case), speaker (of state Assembly), and the courts (high court, in this case) – at the time of political crises in a democratic set-up.
As the curtains are being drawn, it is worth pondering over the role played by these institutional referees in fluid political situations.
Take the case of the role of governor, first. Ruling JD(U) leader Nitish Kumar publicly raised apprehensions over the role of governor Keshari Nath Tripathi for giving a long rope to JD(U) rebel and Bihar chief minister Jitan Ram Manjhi. Tripathi, on his part, stuck to his position granting a long rope to Manjhi to prove his majority on the floor of the House.
But, Manjhi’s resignations moments before Tripathi was supposed to address Bihar legislators on Friday (February 20) flies in the face of governor’s political judgement to provide a long rope to Bihar chief minister. While Tripathi may be unfazed over cancelling his address to Bihar legislators moments before the schedule, he cannot wash his hands off the fact that his long rope provided Manjhi and his clutch of seven legislators (ministers who were united only for their anti-Nitish outlook) to virtually hold the state to ranson for last one fortnight. Meanwhile, these eight people have made announcements through their cabinet decisions which appear outlandish even by populist standards of Aam Aadmi Party’s (AAP) election manifesto.
Tripathi knows it too well that announcements without details of financing and implementation schedules can be part of election manifestos, but does not behove of responsible state governments of which governor is the titular head. Governors are supposed to be non-partisan, but they definitely are not supposed to apolitical in their assessment of political situations in the states.
Coming to the role played by the speaker of state assembly – Uday Narayan Chaudhary, who was elected MLA as JD(U) party member last elections. The BJP has slammed his role in this entire episode and equated the office of speaker as an office of JD(U) for allegedly playing to the whims of Nitish Kumar during the entire political crisis.
After JD(U) elected Nitish as its legislature party leader on February 7 (Saturday), Chaudhary demonstrated urgency to notify the decision on February 9 (Monday) when Nitish staked claim to form the government while Manjhi stuck to his guns as the CM. With governor granting a long rope to Manjhi, speaker’s recognition of Nitish as ruling JD(U) legislature party leader was of little material substance as far the proceedings of the House go. As unrelenting Manjhi continued to frustrate, Nitish sought to discredit BJP’s hands behind it by seeking opposition benches in the state Assembly for the forthcoming session. Chaudhary obliged declaring JDU leader as the leader of opposition without intimating the formal removal of BJP leader Nand Kishore Yadav from that position. Chaudhary clearly appeared playing to Nitish’s tunes and BJP made it a political issue with one anti-Nitish legislator moving for impeachment proceedings against him.
Whatever be the case and the experts of Parliamentary conventions will have to sift through past precedents and democratic norms to underline whether Chaudhary upheld the moral authority of the post of speaker, the least he could have done to come out and cited his reasons for his decisions to demonstrate that he had at least tried to go by his interpretation of the statute and the norms. One gets reminded of the situation when Chandrashekar turned the tables against then Prime Minister VP Singh, whose government was supported by BJP, to become prime minister. A senior BJP leader recounted how Rajiv Gandhi, who was the leader of opposition in Lok Sabha when Singh was prime minister, was relegated to treasury benches and LK Advani was made the leader of opposition when Chandrashekhar took over. Likewise, in UP assembly when chief minister Mulayam Singh Yadav sided with Chandrashekhar, the leader of opposition in state assembly ND Tiwari was said to have gone to treasury benches as he had to support Mulayam after Rajiv’s support to his party at the centre. Mulayam’s colleague Rewati Raman Singh, consequently, had to shift to opposition benches as he became leader of opposition as Janata Dal leader siding with VP Singh. So, there were precedents from the past which Chaudhary could have used to place his case. Or, if he was going to create a new precedent, the Bihar assembly speaker should have come out open to provide his legal interpretation to justify his decision to protect the dignity and respect of his position.
Caught in the middle of these two political positions was the neutral authority of Patna High Court which became a play ground for both sides. As the dust settles, the courts should look back at their swift rulings – at least 6 of them in last seven working days till the eve of floor test on Friday – to ponder over their trigger happy role in the fluid political situation. Here are some of the prominent rulings:
February 11: Patna High Court stayed Assembly speaker’s decision recognising Nitish Kumar as the leader of the JD(U) legislature party in place of chief minister Jitan Ram Manjhi.
February 12: The Patna High Court on ordered that Nitish can continue as the leader of Janata Dal United Legislative Party after a review petition was filed by JDU.
February 16: Patna High Court stayed all the decisions taken by his government in the last three Cabinet meetings. The high court said Manjhi government can take decisions only after proving majority on floor of the House on February 20.
February 18: The Patna High Court on Wednesday modified its previous order and gave freedom to the Jitan Ram Manjhi government to take decisions but directed that their implementation should be only after February 21 (after floor test).
February 19: Patna High Court did not allow four dissident JD(U) MLAs from casting their ballot in the crucial confidence vote on Friday (February 20).
February 19: Patna HC dismisses a petition by minister Vinay Bihari to keep speaker Uday Narayan Chaudhary away from the trust vote.
To be fair to the high court, it did not interfere in the fluid situation on its own. It was the mutual mistrust among the cast of political actors – chief ministers, speaker, sovernor, legislators – that got one side or the other rushing to the high court to seek impartial rulings. But, a ruling one day and modifications/caveats introduced the other day indicated how the rush of the political actors got the courts to rush into their problems. Going by the famous court judgement SR Bommai judgement, which incidentally came for reference numerous times during this political drama, that has come to attain a life of its own, none of the Patna High Court interventions seem to match the stature of that judgement. Incidentally, further hearing on some of these cases will be slated as the dust settles on the current crisis on Sunday with Nitish taking over as the chief minister.
It is not the first time that the role played by these institutions has created precedents which has come to be either slammed or hailed over the year. The role played by these referees in the current episode in Bihar clearly underlines that our democratic set-up will take some time to where we will have evolved trust among the key stakeholders about the role and actions of referees.